Do I understand your argument correctly? Since philly is controlled by democrats and philly has systemic education problems, the democrats must be anti-education and therefore anti-american dream?

Obviously a powerful argument!

I think he was using Philly as an example of his argument, not as part of some form of if-then logical clause. Take it with a grain of salt, I did.

The fact of the matter, however, is that liberal leaders often view themselves as an educated elite charged with looking after the unwashed masses. That was basically how Castro viewed himself.

Gwiz seems to be arguing that these liberal leaders have a vested interest in proving that the "unwashed masses" exist and in-fact need their help and constant nannying. If we were to create a system of true socio-economic mobility, it would be harder for these people to gain power (what they are really after), and therefore, they pursue nanny-state policies, instead of attacking the problems that really affect our ability to better ourselves in any meaningful way.

Why do you think the Democratic candidates always line up to perform fellatio on the president of the AFL-CIO? It's about power. Really though, both parties are about power, and the sooner we realize that none of them really out to help us, the better off we'll be.

I can kind of understand your argument, but you use a lot of terms that you know what they mean, but the rest of us are clueless. For example you have unwashed masses in quotations, are your referencing a term or work or are you just saying lower class or what. Also what does "nannying" mean-you need an example. Also why would it be harder for "these people" who I assume you mean liberals to gain power if there was a true socio-economic mobility-its not like the poorest of the poor ever vote, thus liberals have to depend on creating a middle class consensus for these programs and how do you just create a true socio-economic mobility system (are you advocating the creation of some socialist state, where private property is taken from those that currently have it, or are you just saying there would be more mobility if resources like education, daycare, et cetera were more even distributed. Lastly, why are you so cynical about the political processes, the U.S. is a great country, it didn't get that way because all our leaders are corrupt and could care less about the people, there are a lots of third world countries where that is true, and they are stuck in economic stagnation, DUH-politicians are after power, always they are out for power-- but that is always interacting with policy decisions, not always predominating it.

For example you have unwashed masses in quotations, are your referencing a term or work or are you just saying lower class or what

Lower Class / the general populace -- those who don't have anything that makes them particularly important.

Quote

Also what does "nannying" mean-you need an example.

Nannying refers to any law-making that attempts to scold people and make us less responsible for our own selves and lives. Similar to how a parent or nanny treats a child. The traditional example is seatbelt laws -- not wearing your seatbelt doesn't really hurt anyone except yourself, and yet we have "click it or ticket" (even moreso here in NJ where our Governor failed to wear his belt and managed to survive).

Quote

Also why would it be harder for "these people" who I assume you mean liberals to gain power if there was a true socio-economic mobility-its not like the poorest of the poor ever vote, thus liberals have to depend on creating a middle class consensus for these programs and how do you just create a true socio-economic mobility system (are you advocating the creation of some socialist state, where private property is taken from those that currently have it, or are you just saying there would be more mobility if resources like education, daycare, et cetera were more even distributed.

Not even just liberals (although, I do believe that the liberal social programs do more to this end than others), but in a system where there is no social mobility, there are fewer people on top. Even in a democracy, it is the rich, famous and otherwise privileged who have access to the means to attain power. Social mobility gives more people the ability to attain power, and therefore increases the supply of potential "leaders." By decreasing supply of said "leaders," they would essentially increase their own chance to stay in power.

Quote

Lastly, why are you so cynical about the political processes, the U.S. is a great country, it didn't get that way because all our leaders are corrupt and could care less about the people, there are a lots of third world countries where that is true, and they are stuck in economic stagnation, DUH-politicians are after power, always they are out for power-- but that is always interacting with policy decisions, not always predominating it.

We're not the worst in the world, our government's structure prevents the most serious abuses of power. but allows for many. Career politicians are looking for a job, not looking to make the world a better place. When you read about some of the epic debates and political discourse of previous centuries in this country, it should bring a tear to your eye whenever you flip to CSPAN and see the childish whining that goes on now.

Politics used to be the domain of mature grown-ups, now it seems to be the Neverland for lost boys who never want to grow up.

Captain Longshot I think you are way more cynical than I am. You make it sound like its easy to identify problems and solve them...I think politicians do make a good faith effort to make the world better, most of them have convictions though they may be more subtle than the notions that first come to your mind when you think of a politician with convictions. Everything in your life has been effected by policy decisions, from the clothes you wear--what are our trade agreements with the rest of the world, will we accept clothes made in China if it makes it cheaper for the consumer--the computer you use--where was it made, what software, what internet sites would you go to, for example would Google exist if the Justice Department did bring an anti-trust suit against Microsoft--to pretty much anything around, have a book near you, copyright law effects the industry, et cetera. When you are in law school and studying a legal class remember that a state legislature or Congress probably passed the applicable statute when you look into the history you will see that most of these policy decisions have had people put a lot of thought into. Does the United States delve headlong into complicated social and political problems, no its the nature of our political system that we deal with stuff piecemeal, but that doesn't mean politicians are not making their best effort.

Sure politicians are trying to get reelected or elected in the first place, jsut like students go after A's in colleges, its part of the game, its what politicians do, but that doesn't mean politicians are solely motivated by that goal, just like most students aren't solely motivated in a subject just to get an A. And I don't think politicians were any different 100 years ago, they might talk different because they talk in soundbites for tv now for example, but its doubtful behind the scenes much as changed unless you think human nature has changed a lot in 100 years.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned these points, but I'll chime in for two things. Economic diversity is a tough thing to shoot for because if it is your main goal, you won't get very many URM's. Because there are way more whites in this country than any other race, there are way more poor whites than poor anythings. Poor whites will dilute the pool so much that you're back to having basically white (and recently Asian) student bodies.

Also, it's not a new thing that elite schools aim to help out poor people. I've heard that Princeton tries to give financial aid in a way that you should not have to take out any student loans. Sure, your parents could be the types that think you should pay your own way, but if your a family cannot afford to send you there without loans, they'll give you grants to meet need 100%. I also know that very few schools do this. My UG is on the cusp of being "elite" (top 20), and they left me with $25k+ of debt with parents who combined for less than $80k per year in wages. In retrospect, I should have went there. Don't get me wrong, I loved my UG experience, and I don't think I would have had it anywhere else, but that's a steep price to pay for anything.

But I guess I kinda missed the boat on this topic. I know it's about AA for socioeconomic diversity, but you'd be shocked how many "poor" kids make it into top schools. It's way, way more than the number of URM's who do.